Maybe Dems are starting to _get it_
Comments
-
I do enjoy how every non Lefty is rich and evil while simultaneously poor and uneducated and voting against their best interest.
-
Not sure if you have heard but things are different these days and guns had something to do with itallpurpleallgold said:
I wonder why the majority wants guns and minority’s don’t. Hmm. It’s definitely about freedom. Not at all that white people have used violence against minority’s as a way to eliminate, hold back and control them for this countries entire existence.SarkFanSixtyNine said:
Unfortunately it's pretty much inevitable that they eventually win. The future Americans don't like freedom. The Dems understand this and it's why keeping the border open is one of their main priorities. California once voted for Ronald Reagan lol.oregonblitzkrieg said:Freedom knows which side to be on and which side to oppose at this point in history. Your side is the enemy of freedom, the enemy of the founders' ideals, and it's going down in flames one way or another. I'll say it again, clean your own house before it gets cleaned for you. Your side in its current form won't be permitted to rule and destroy the nation.
-
First, ISAFNRC.SarkFanSixtyNine said:
Unfortunately it's pretty much inevitable that they eventually win. The future Americans don't like freedom. The Dems understand this and it's why keeping the border open is one of their main priorities. California once voted for Ronald Reagan lol.oregonblitzkrieg said:Freedom knows which side to be on and which side to oppose at this point in history. Your side is the enemy of freedom, the enemy of the founders' ideals, and it's going down in flames one way or another. I'll say it again, clean your own house before it gets cleaned for you. Your side in its current form won't be permitted to rule and destroy the nation.
That being said, Da fuq kind of poll asks "protect gun rights" and "control gun ownership" as two choices. As if they are mutually exclusive. -
Go fuck yourself if you think a chart showing facts is racist.2001400ex said:
First, ISAFNRC.SarkFanSixtyNine said:
Unfortunately it's pretty much inevitable that they eventually win. The future Americans don't like freedom. The Dems understand this and it's why keeping the border open is one of their main priorities. California once voted for Ronald Reagan lol.oregonblitzkrieg said:Freedom knows which side to be on and which side to oppose at this point in history. Your side is the enemy of freedom, the enemy of the founders' ideals, and it's going down in flames one way or another. I'll say it again, clean your own house before it gets cleaned for you. Your side in its current form won't be permitted to rule and destroy the nation.
That being said, Da fuq kind of poll asks "protect gun rights" and "control gun ownership" as two choices. As if they are mutually exclusive. -
The first chart shows whites not being a majority in the future. Explain why you included that.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Go fuck yourself if you think a chart showing facts is racist.2001400ex said:
First, ISAFNRC.SarkFanSixtyNine said:
Unfortunately it's pretty much inevitable that they eventually win. The future Americans don't like freedom. The Dems understand this and it's why keeping the border open is one of their main priorities. California once voted for Ronald Reagan lol.oregonblitzkrieg said:Freedom knows which side to be on and which side to oppose at this point in history. Your side is the enemy of freedom, the enemy of the founders' ideals, and it's going down in flames one way or another. I'll say it again, clean your own house before it gets cleaned for you. Your side in its current form won't be permitted to rule and destroy the nation.
That being said, Da fuq kind of poll asks "protect gun rights" and "control gun ownership" as two choices. As if they are mutually exclusive. -
The rich need useful idiots too.Pitchfork51 said:I do enjoy how every non Lefty is rich and evil while simultaneously poor and uneducated and voting against their best interest.
-
https://washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/11/why-killer-mike-is-right-african-americans-should-own-guns/?utm_term=.67fa3c223f38
Last month, hip-hop artist Killer Mike used an interview conducted by the National Rifle Association’s media arm, NRATV, to advocate for black gun ownership, chiding members of his community for being “lackeys” of the white gun-control movement. The interview prompted fierce social media blowback. Many argued that Killer Mike’s words merely served as fodder for the NRA’s attempt to undermine the youth-led March for Our Lives.
Days later, Killer Mike issued a two-part video apology on Twitter. The NRA “used the interview to disparage a very noble campaign that I support. My interview was supposed to be something that continued a conversation,” he clarified, “a conversation about African American gun ownership in these times. We have to remember in our allyship [with whites] that we still have to make sure there are certain rights and demands that we make for us and our community. … I support the march and black people owning guns.”
Although the controversy surrounding Killer Mike’s interview and apology received significant publicity, few have properly situated it in the history of white supremacy and gun policy. From the earliest days of the American colonies, gun laws have aimed to arm whites and disarm people of color and indigenous people, part of the quest to maintain white supremacy. People of color and indigenous people have long fought against this double standard, recognizing that gun ownership can be integral to securing equality — especially in a country where white gun ownership is valorized and protected.
-
From the earliest days of European colonization, gun laws served as a proxy for regulating and containing people of color and indigenous people. In 1647, “The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts” banned any man from repairing “any gun, small or great, belonging to any Indian. … Nor shall sell or give to any Indian, directly or indirectly any such gun, or any gun-powder, shot or lead, or shotmould, or any militarie weapons or armour.” Punishment entailed a fine of 10 pounds or, absent that, corporal punishment.
Connecticut replicated this statute almost word for word in 1650. Ten years later, Connecticut officials declared that “Negroes” and “Indians” were exempt from serving in the militia, which for practical purposes meant they could not possess firearms. -
-
But but but 1650 POTD.RaceBannon said:From the earliest days of European colonization, gun laws served as a proxy for regulating and containing people of color and indigenous people. In 1647, “The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts” banned any man from repairing “any gun, small or great, belonging to any Indian. … Nor shall sell or give to any Indian, directly or indirectly any such gun, or any gun-powder, shot or lead, or shotmould, or any militarie weapons or armour.” Punishment entailed a fine of 10 pounds or, absent that, corporal punishment.
Connecticut replicated this statute almost word for word in 1650. Ten years later, Connecticut officials declared that “Negroes” and “Indians” were exempt from serving in the militia, which for practical purposes meant they could not possess firearms.
